Guest guest Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 I wonder what you all think of this article- he describes feminine power (and there Goddess power) as soft, yielding, subtle. I do agree...but at the same time, how do you reconcile this definition with the images of Kali and Durga, which emphasize action and violence. You certainly can't call them 'masculine' but I feel that the author's definition of feminine power (which seems to be the standard one) doesn't take the more violent aspect of the Goddess into account. http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/spirit/archives/joy-being-feminine-wisdom-and-\ power-weakness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 On the one hand, women are very strong, give birth, Goddess as all there is as Cosmos, is Vast, Mother Earth, has volcanos, storms, stars swirling in the Cosmos, and " darkness was on the face of the deep " at the beginning of creation before time began, Kali, is so beautiful to me. I see no violence or very limited mention of anything terrifying about Kali in all the Kali puja. So many beautiful things are said about Her. So much peaceful. and yet She is destroyer of some pretty powerful demons and drinnks up Every last drop of their blood catching it on Her tongue their demon essence becomes transmuted transformed into Her own energy and She is Powerful Thundering Mother. Consider this: " OM GODDESS WHO TAKES AWAY DARKNESS, GODDESS WHO TAKES AWAY DARKNESS, GREAT GODDESS WHO TAKES AWAY DARKNESS, BELOVED GODDESS WHO TAKES AWAY DARKNESS, WHO TAKES AWAY ALL SIN, GIVE THE WAY OF PEACE " from the Kali Puja sacred scripture of Kali Sounds strikingly similar to you of some biblical scriptures? Even Jesus is portrayed as " meek " " and the meek shall inherit the earth " but his death is so gruesome, hanging on the cross to die. I think Jesus Mother must be Mother Kali Kali is so compatible with the old testament God of the Bible. She is to me a Goddess who is AS powerful or more than any of the male Gods. In fact I was at a Navratri Puja this weekend last Saturday 19th and some of the ladies were talking while we ate lunch after the Chanting, and commented " only woman is powerfuol enough to kill the demons " when one little five year old boy asked innocently to his mom " Who is powerful enough to kill the demons? " so I was glad to hear a culture of female Strength. I think also men and the male aspect have hidden in them a great sensitivity which like strength in women often goes overlooked due to cultural stereotypes. Namaste, Sunflower , " sd " <salharmonica wrote: > > I wonder what you all think of this article- > > he describes feminine power (and there Goddess power) as soft, yielding, subtle. I do agree...but at the same time, how do you reconcile this definition with the images of Kali and Durga, which emphasize action and violence. You certainly can't call them 'masculine' but I feel that the author's definition of feminine power (which seems to be the standard one) doesn't take the more violent aspect of the Goddess into account. > > http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/spirit/archives/joy-being-feminine-wis\ dom-and-power-weakness > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 jai gurudev dear friend, pls read sri durga saptashati or devi mahatamya in english or any language u fell comfortable in. after that u will not comment,the way u did. despite destroying terrible demons like mashsasur,shumbh nishumbh raktabeej etc,whom the gods cant defeat,mataji ie mother is most beautiful,and the epitome of beauty. she is ghora rupa and also she is saumy and ati sundari. ie she is terrifying but also more than most beautiful,the 3 gunas-satva-rajas-tamas r part of her,but still she is above all gunas and doshas. pls read srimad devi bhagwat and devi mahatamya and u will know all.any language is ok. om shakti gopal On 9/26/09, sd <salharmonica wrote: > > > > I wonder what you all think of this article- > > he describes feminine power (and there Goddess power) as soft, yielding, > subtle. I do agree...but at the same time, how do you reconcile this > definition with the images of Kali and Durga, which emphasize action and > violence. You certainly can't call them 'masculine' but I feel that the > author's definition of feminine power (which seems to be the standard one) > doesn't take the more violent aspect of the Goddess into account. > > > http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/spirit/archives/joy-being-feminine-wisdom-and-\ power-weakness > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\ +++++++ TRUTH PATH DESTINATION GOAL REAL ADIGURU SALVATION KARMA DESTINY AND ALL THAT EXISTS IS ONLY SUPREME NATURE SUPREME ENERGY DIVINE MOTHER ADI SHAKTI MAHAKAALI MAHALAXMI MAHASARASWATI LALITA TRIPURA SUNDARI KULKUNDALINI PARMESHWARI SHE IS THE ONLY BEING IN EXISTANCE AND WE ARE ALL PART OF HER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 jai gurudev dear friend, u cant compare sanatan dharma to patriacal monoatheism. in monoatheism there is 1 god among many gods and he is jealous and makes u to bow to him and if u dont he puts u in imaginary hell forever. in sanatan dharma there is only 1 god=spreme being adi shakti in existance and all gods ,goddesses,stars,planets,galaxies,all living beings r a part of this divinity. she is never weak or meek,she is all powerful and all that exists is her.she is all powerful,as all gods and goddesses r part of adi shakti. as mahakaali she kills madhu kaithab,as mahalaxmi she kills mahisasur,as mahasaraswati she kills shumbh nishumbh,as kaali-chamunda she kills raktabeej,chand,munda,etc... as lalita tripurasundari she kills bhandasur etc.... there is no difference between us and mother.this is vedic adwaith vision which is scientificially proven. i again request u to pls read srimad devi bhagwat puran markandeya puran,etc....and understand the divinity in her totality.she is one with us and we r one with her. later on all other world religion have copied this,in various ways. she is most merciful,bcoz she kills demons who torment humanity and gods,but she gives salvation to the demons she kills.ie,she kills and those killed also get salvation, ie devotees,and opposers both get salvation into her divine lotus feet [ shree charankamal ]. this proves there is no one more merciful than her !!!!!!! so,i will politely say,that u cant compare awdaith with monoathesit deity.i am sorry if i hurt yr feelings, but this is fact. om shakti gopal On 9/26/09, Sunflower <sunflowerzmagick wrote: > > > > > On the one hand, women are very strong, give birth, Goddess as all there > is as Cosmos, is Vast, Mother Earth, has volcanos, storms, stars > swirling in the Cosmos, and " darkness was on the face of the deep " at > the beginning of creation before time began, Kali, is so beautiful to > me. I see no violence or very limited mention of anything terrifying > about Kali in all the Kali puja. So many beautiful things are said about > Her. So much peaceful. > > and yet She is destroyer of some pretty powerful demons and drinnks up > Every last drop of their blood catching it on Her tongue their demon > essence becomes transmuted transformed into Her own energy and She is > Powerful Thundering Mother. > > Consider this: > > " OM GODDESS WHO TAKES AWAY DARKNESS, GODDESS WHO TAKES AWAY DARKNESS, > GREAT > GODDESS WHO TAKES AWAY DARKNESS, BELOVED GODDESS WHO TAKES AWAY > DARKNESS, > WHO TAKES AWAY ALL SIN, GIVE THE WAY OF PEACE " > > from the Kali Puja sacred scripture of Kali > > Sounds strikingly similar to you of some biblical scriptures? Even > Jesus is portrayed as " meek " " and the meek shall inherit the earth " but > his death is so gruesome, hanging on the cross to die. I think Jesus > Mother must be Mother Kali Kali is so compatible with the old testament > God of the Bible. She is to me a Goddess who is AS powerful or more > than any of the male Gods. > > In fact I was at a Navratri Puja this weekend last Saturday 19th and > some of the ladies were talking while we ate lunch after the Chanting, > and commented " only woman is powerfuol enough to kill the demons " when > one little five year old boy asked innocently to his mom " Who is > powerful enough to kill the demons? " so I was glad to hear a culture of > female Strength. > > I think also men and the male aspect have hidden in them a great > sensitivity which like strength in women often goes overlooked due to > cultural stereotypes. > > Namaste, > > Sunflower > <%40>, > " sd " <salharmonica wrote: > > > > I wonder what you all think of this article- > > > > he describes feminine power (and there Goddess power) as soft, > yielding, subtle. I do agree...but at the same time, how do you > reconcile this definition with the images of Kali and Durga, which > emphasize action and violence. You certainly can't call them 'masculine' > but I feel that the author's definition of feminine power (which seems > to be the standard one) doesn't take the more violent aspect of the > Goddess into account. > > > > > http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/spirit/archives/joy-being-feminine-wis\ > dom-and-power-weakness<http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/spirit/archives/joy-bei\ ng-feminine-wisdom-and-power-weakness> > > > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\ +++++++ TRUTH PATH DESTINATION GOAL REAL ADIGURU SALVATION KARMA DESTINY AND ALL THAT EXISTS IS ONLY SUPREME NATURE SUPREME ENERGY DIVINE MOTHER ADI SHAKTI MAHAKAALI MAHALAXMI MAHASARASWATI LALITA TRIPURA SUNDARI KULKUNDALINI PARMESHWARI SHE IS THE ONLY BEING IN EXISTANCE AND WE ARE ALL PART OF HER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 I couldn't open the article, so I can't comment on that specifically, but as to the concept of the passive feminine, Ron Hutton has a great book called *The Place of the Hidden Moon*, about the history of Western witchcraft and esotericism, in which he traces the development of the Western concept of the goddess (and thus the feminine) as the earth, as this passive thing, and the god (and thus the masculine) as the sky, active. It has to do with eighteenth and nineteenth century European (primarily English, magnified during the Victorian era) romanticism and sexism, and this heavily affected the new age and wiccan concepts of deity, which tend to see the earth as feminine, the sky as masculine, and in my own experience, I've seen a lot of people in these arenas taking this as universal, and they're surprised when I point out the many, many ancient and living traditions that don't follow this paradigm at all. In the Kabbalah, the masculine is passive and loving, the feminine is active and fierce. In Egyptian mythology, both feminine and masculine shared active and passive qualities. Nut (a goddess) was the sky, Osiris (a god) the fertile earth, Sekhmet (a goddess) the ferocious protector. In Tantra, the masculine is passive, the feminine is active (as Shakti). Both can be fierce, both can be loving. Their ferocity stems from a place of love, not ego. This is all extremely simplified, and I'm glossing over what are very complex subjects, but I just wanted to give a basic response to your query. jai MAA kamesvari -kulasundari Sri Kamakhya Mahavidya Mandir www.kamakhyamandir.org On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:07 PM, sd <salharmonica wrote: > > > I wonder what you all think of this article- > > he describes feminine power (and there Goddess power) as soft, yielding, > subtle. I do agree...but at the same time, how do you reconcile this > definition with the images of Kali and Durga, which emphasize action and > violence. You certainly can't call them 'masculine' but I feel that the > author's definition of feminine power (which seems to be the standard one) > doesn't take the more violent aspect of the Goddess into account. > > > http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/spirit/archives/joy-being-feminine-wisdom-and-\ power-weakness > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 , Kulasundari Devi <sundari wrote: > > [....] as > to the concept of the passive feminine, Ron Hutton has a great book called *The > Place of the Hidden Moon*, about the history of Western witchcraft and > esotericism, [....] I think you mean _The Triumph of the Moon_, and I second the recommendation, for those interested in the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Moon-History-Modern-Witchcraft/dp/0192854496/ref=s\ r_1_2?ie=UTF8 & s=books & qid=1253987566 & sr=8-2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Ah! yes. Sorry, I was getting my titles mixed up. The Place of the Hidden Moon is an excellent book by Edward Dimock, one of the better ones written on Vaishnava Tantra. Thanks for the correction! -kulasundari On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:54 AM, msbauju <msbauju wrote: > > > <%40>, > Kulasundari Devi <sundari wrote: > > > > [....] as > > > to the concept of the passive feminine, Ron Hutton has a great book > called *The > > Place of the Hidden Moon*, about the history of Western witchcraft and > > esotericism, [....] > > I think you mean _The Triumph of the Moon_, and I second the > recommendation, for those interested in the topic: > > http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Moon-History-Modern-Witchcraft/dp/0192854496/ref=s\ r_1_2?ie=UTF8 & s=books & qid=1253987566 & sr=8-2 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Mr. Gopal, I was not referring to the demi-god Yahweh to whom you refer. I was referring to Darkness on the Face of the Deep at the Beginning of Creation " before Time " the all powerful, nameless one. i was speaking of the forces of creation, and I was not making any patriarchal monotheistic reference to the Bible -- my reference was to the Creator of the Old Testament, God at the beginning, No Yahweh who was later appointed to rule over the earthly realms and who yes was a " jealous god " -- I should have said the Creator God of the Old Testament. and you have not hurt anything certainly not my feelings. I'm old enough to know better and to compare and contrast anything to anyone. Funny you didn't object when I compared Osho to Martha Stewart. Lol By the way, I find your repetitive utterance of " jai gurudev " shallow and rather hallmark, a bit over commmercialized and starting to get rather old, trite, and cliche, and to top it off, annoying. I find in the modern world some are attempting to supplant Divine Mother with the Concept of Guru as Guru's are more profitable like musicians and movie stars. Sunflower (btw I don't know you. i think we haven't met) , gopal narayan <gopalnarayan123 wrote: > > jai gurudev > > > dear friend, > > > u cant compare sanatan dharma to patriacal monoatheism. > > in monoatheism there is 1 god among many gods and he > is jealous and makes u to bow to him and if u dont he puts > u in imaginary hell forever. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 YEAH, why honor the guru? After all, who needs a guru? Everybody knows that in Tantra the guru is totally unimportant anyway. The guru is not a new concept. It goes back to the Vedas. The guru has always been considered more important to the devotee than God, because the guru is transmitting the means for attaining oneness with God. A true guru is not in it for personal glory, and if you can't understand that, then you have clearly never met a true guru. If you have never met or studied with a true guru, then it can be difficult to understand why the guru is so important, and thus so honored. I realize that Gopal is a rather controversial figure here. But slamming him or anyone else for saying " jai gurudev " due to some personal discomfort with the millenias-old tradition based on ill-informed assumptions about a few modern celebrity gurus just strikes me as a little misinformed. He may be referring to his own guru, or to the universal guru that resides within each of us; who are you to judge either way? There are plenty of charlatan gurus and teachers out there, as we all know very well, who revel in the psychodrama of celebrity, adoration and power. This is why it's important to be critical and spend a long time assessing potential gurus and their devotees before submitting ourselves to them for learning sadhana and progressing toward liberation. But please think and take time to be well-informed about the subject before you take a sweeping blow against all of us who honor our gurus, together with a strong sense of self and critical minds, in our own traditional or non-traditional manners, as your words have done here. gururbrahma gururvisnu gururdevo mahesvarah gurusaksat parabrahma tasmai shri guruve namah jai MAA kamesvari -kulasundari On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Sunflower <sunflowerzmagickwrote: > > > Mr. Gopal, > I was not referring to the demi-god Yahweh to whom you refer. I was > referring to Darkness on the Face of the Deep at the Beginning of Creation > " before Time " the all powerful, nameless one. i was speaking of the forces > of creation, and > I was not making any patriarchal monotheistic reference to the Bible -- my > reference was to the Creator of the Old Testament, God at the beginning, No > Yahweh who was later appointed to rule over the earthly realms and who yes > was a " jealous god " -- > I should have said the Creator God of the Old Testament. > and > you have not hurt anything certainly not my feelings. I'm old enough to > know better and to compare and contrast anything to anyone. Funny you didn't > object when I compared Osho to Martha Stewart. Lol > > By the way, I find your repetitive utterance of " jai gurudev " shallow and > rather hallmark, a bit over commmercialized and starting to get rather old, > trite, and cliche, and to top it off, annoying. I find in the modern world > some are attempting to supplant Divine Mother with the Concept of Guru as > Guru's are more profitable like musicians and movie stars. > > Sunflower (btw I don't know you. i think we haven't met) > > > <%40>, > gopal narayan <gopalnarayan123 wrote: > > > > jai gurudev > > > > > > dear friend, > > > > > > u cant compare sanatan dharma to patriacal monoatheism. > > > > in monoatheism there is 1 god among many gods and he > > is jealous and makes u to bow to him and if u dont he puts > > u in imaginary hell forever. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 hmmm- that's very interesting. Thanks! At the same time, if both feminine and masculine can be active fierce/passive receptive, why even have any such thing as masculine and feminine? Doesn't the fact that each has certain qualities make it easier to differentiate betwen them? I realize this statement may contradict my original post, but I'm just thinking out loud...trying to understand this... , Kulasundari Devi <sundari wrote: > > I couldn't open the article, so I can't comment on that specifically, but as > to the concept of the passive feminine, Ron Hutton has a great book called *The > Place of the Hidden Moon*, about the history of Western witchcraft and > esotericism, in which he traces the development of the Western concept of > the goddess (and thus the feminine) as the earth, as this passive thing, and > the god (and thus the masculine) as the sky, active. It has to do with > eighteenth and nineteenth century European (primarily English, magnified > during the Victorian era) romanticism and sexism, and this heavily affected > the new age and wiccan concepts of deity, which tend to see the earth as > feminine, the sky as masculine, and in my own experience, I've seen a lot of > people in these arenas taking this as universal, and they're surprised when > I point out the many, many ancient and living traditions that don't follow > this paradigm at all. > In the Kabbalah, the masculine is passive and loving, the feminine is active > and fierce. In Egyptian mythology, both feminine and masculine shared active > and passive qualities. Nut (a goddess) was the sky, Osiris (a god) the > fertile earth, Sekhmet (a goddess) the ferocious protector. > > In Tantra, the masculine is passive, the feminine is active (as Shakti). > Both can be fierce, both can be loving. Their ferocity stems from a place of > love, not ego. > > This is all extremely simplified, and I'm glossing over what are very > complex subjects, but I just wanted to give a basic response to your query. > > jai MAA kamesvari > -kulasundari > > Sri Kamakhya Mahavidya Mandir > www.kamakhyamandir.org > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Well, there are a lot of views on that subject within Hinduism. There is an understanding in Tantra of Devi as active and Shiva as passive, but then that frequently gets flipped on its head, where the Deva becomes active and the Devi becomes submissive (think about the popular story that the reason Kali is sticking out her tongue is because she is stepping on her husband, and she is ashamed... this isn't the inner meaning but it's a popular explanation). The core idea is that Shiva is a corpse without Shakti, as the saying goes. How that is then interpreted is open to debate, and provides the difference between various Tantric and Vedantic schools of thought. Some schools believe that Devi is the ultimate reality and that all things are manifestations of Her (including the masculine/feminine duality, which dissolves into unity) and others that Shiva is the ultimate reality, etc. There are so many permutations. But for instance, take the difference in connotation between these concepts: 1) in the Kerala Mudiyettu tradition (sacred dance), the dance is a devotional act toward Bhadrakali (Kali). In their mythology, Kali emerges from the third eye of Shiva as the manifestation of pure anger, in order to defeat a demon. 2) in the Devi Mahatmyam, Kali emerges as the manifestation of concentrated rage from the third eye of Chandi, the pervasive reality that is the Divine Mother, to defeat Chanda and Munda, and Raktabija. 3) in the Devi Bhagavatam, Chandi reveals herself to be actually male, but to have taken a female form in order to defeat the demons. So these different approaches have different interpretations of the interplay of gender, the primacy of divine masculine or divine feminine, etc. Ultimately feminine and masculine are meaningless terms, when you get to the place of Brahman/oneness, but they can be very meaningful indeed in practice, distribution of power, concepts of ritual purity, etc., depending on the interpretation of the individual or community. To deconstruct it a little bit further, masculine and feminine are descriptors based on secondary sex characteristics, and observations of the natural world and of social interaction. The idea of masculine and feminine changes over time. For instance, in some areas Kali's ferocity is given as a reason why women must be controlled, because Kali is terrifying as the uncontrolled feminine force. In other areas, Kali's power is used as a reason why women should be worshipped, because women are incarnations of the Divine Feminine. It's not that men aren't also, but women are considered MOREso. Loriliai Biernacki talks about a similar concept called the Kali practice, in which men are to worship all women all the time (that is, not constrained to ritual settings - all women ARE the goddess all the time, as opposed to embodying the goddess for the purpose of ritual), in her book Renowned Goddess of Desire. Ultimately, though, the goal of Tantric practice is to reduce differentiation, so to speak, in the service of realization of oneness. This is really oversimplifying the concept, but ultimately to say " this is masculine " and " this is feminine " with hard boundaries in the mind is counterproductive. They are categories and code language but not necessarily the same meaning as our day-to-day concepts. On this point Indian philosophy and European philosophy also have big differences, which has contributed to a lot of misunderstanding and assumptions (going both ways, in fact). But it explains why the more radically nondual paths such as Vamacara and Aghora embrace taboo substances, places, people and practices, in service of more fully realizing oneness. The Shakta Tantric nondual worldview typically differs from the Vedantic nondual worldview, in that Shakta Tantra largely sees the manifest world as a manifestation of Shakti (therefore all must be embraced as divine), whereas the Vedantic nondual worldview sees the world as illusion, the nonduality being limited to the self (atman) as one with the ultimate (brahman). I am speaking in VERY broad strokes, forgive me! I'm sure others will have enlightening commentary, as well. This is just one (very, very simplified) perspective. jai MA kamesvari -kulasundari -- Sri Kamakhya Mahavidya Mandir www.kamakhyamandir.org On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 8:38 AM, sd <salharmonica wrote: > > > hmmm- that's very interesting. Thanks! At the same time, if both feminine > and masculine can be active fierce/passive receptive, why even have any such > thing as masculine and feminine? Doesn't the fact that each has certain > qualities make it easier to differentiate betwen them? I realize this > statement may contradict my original post, but I'm just thinking out > loud...trying to understand this... > > > <%40>, > Kulasundari Devi <sundari wrote: > > > > I couldn't open the article, so I can't comment on that specifically, but > as > > to the concept of the passive feminine, Ron Hutton has a great book > called *The > > Place of the Hidden Moon*, about the history of Western witchcraft and > > esotericism, in which he traces the development of the Western concept of > > the goddess (and thus the feminine) as the earth, as this passive thing, > and > > the god (and thus the masculine) as the sky, active. It has to do with > > eighteenth and nineteenth century European (primarily English, magnified > > during the Victorian era) romanticism and sexism, and this heavily > affected > > the new age and wiccan concepts of deity, which tend to see the earth as > > feminine, the sky as masculine, and in my own experience, I've seen a lot > of > > people in these arenas taking this as universal, and they're surprised > when > > I point out the many, many ancient and living traditions that don't > follow > > this paradigm at all. > > In the Kabbalah, the masculine is passive and loving, the feminine is > active > > and fierce. In Egyptian mythology, both feminine and masculine shared > active > > and passive qualities. Nut (a goddess) was the sky, Osiris (a god) the > > fertile earth, Sekhmet (a goddess) the ferocious protector. > > > > In Tantra, the masculine is passive, the feminine is active (as Shakti). > > Both can be fierce, both can be loving. Their ferocity stems from a place > of > > love, not ego. > > > > This is all extremely simplified, and I'm glossing over what are very > > complex subjects, but I just wanted to give a basic response to your > query. > > > > jai MAA kamesvari > > -kulasundari > > > > Sri Kamakhya Mahavidya Mandir > > www.kamakhyamandir.org > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 oh, I wouldn't call your commentary simplified- it was very detailed and thoughtful. I'm still digesting! Thanks so much. , Kulasundari Devi <sundari wrote: > > Well, there are a lot of views on that subject within Hinduism. > [....] the difference > between various Tantric and Vedantic schools of thought. Some schools > believe that Devi is the ultimate reality and that all things are > manifestations of Her (including the masculine/feminine duality, which > dissolves into unity) and others that Shiva is the ultimate reality, etc. > There are so many permutations. [....] > So these different approaches have different interpretations of the > interplay of gender, the primacy of divine masculine or divine feminine, > etc. Ultimately feminine and masculine are meaningless terms, when you get > to the place of Brahman/oneness, but they can be very meaningful indeed in > practice, distribution of power, concepts of ritual purity, etc., depending > on the interpretation of the individual or community. > > To deconstruct it a little bit further, masculine and feminine are > descriptors based on secondary sex characteristics, and observations of the > natural world and of social interaction. The idea of masculine and feminine > changes over time. [....] > Ultimately, though, the goal of Tantric practice is to reduce > differentiation, so to speak, in the service of realization of oneness. This > is really oversimplifying the concept, but ultimately to say " this is > masculine " and " this is feminine " with hard boundaries in the mind is > counterproductive. They are categories and code language but not necessarily > the same meaning as our day-to-day concepts. On this point Indian philosophy > and European philosophy also have big differences, which has contributed to > a lot of misunderstanding and assumptions (going both ways, in fact). But it > explains why the more radically nondual paths such as Vamacara and Aghora > embrace taboo substances, places, people and practices, in service of more > fully realizing oneness. The Shakta Tantric nondual worldview typically > differs from the Vedantic nondual worldview, in that Shakta Tantra largely > sees the manifest world as a manifestation of Shakti (therefore all must be > embraced as divine), whereas the Vedantic nondual worldview sees the world > as illusion, the nonduality being limited to the self (atman) as one with > the ultimate (brahman). I am speaking in VERY broad strokes, forgive me! > > I'm sure others will have enlightening commentary, as well. This is just one > (very, very simplified) perspective. > > jai MA kamesvari > -kulasundari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.